Thermo Calculation for Diluting 2.5% H3PO4 at 353°C to 100°C with Water

AI Thread Summary
To dilute 2.5% H3PO4 from 353°C to 100°C using water, a heat balance approach is necessary due to the significant changes in heat capacity near the critical point. Instead of the standard equation q=mcΔT, the calculation requires integrating the heat capacity over the temperature range with q = m∫c dT. This method accounts for the varying heat capacity as the concentration approaches zero. The final concentration is expected to be less than 0.1 M after dilution. Accurate calculations will yield the final temperature and the required amount of water for dilution.
sout528
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi there

If I have 2.5% H3PO4 at 353 degrees C and I need to bring the solution down to 100 degrees C only by adding any amount water, how do I go about the thermo calculation? I need final temperature and amount of water (thus final concentration... likely <0.1 M? ) Heat capacity approaches 1 as concentration approaches 0, and the heat of dilution approaches 0 in the same way. Thanks for any advice.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's just a heat balance, but as you start close to critical point the main problem is that the heat capacity changes. Instead of using q=mcΔT you need to use

q = m\int c dT

and integrate from Tstart to Tfinal.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top